MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024510918 · doi:10.4043/24645-ms

GPU-Event-Mechanics Evaluation of Ice Impact Load Statistics

2014· article· en· W2024510918 on OpenAlexaff
Claude Daley, Shadi Alawneh, Dennis Peters, Bruce Colbourne

Bibliographic record

VenueOTC Arctic Technology Conference · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvent (particle physics)CollisionComputer scienceDiscrete event simulationDomain (mathematical analysis)Marine engineeringMeteorologySimulationEngineeringPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The paper explores the use of a GPU-Event-Mechanics (GEM) simulation to assess local ice loads on a vessel operating in pack ice. The methodology uses an event mechanics concept implemented using massively parallel programming on a GPU enabled workstation. The simulation domain contains hundreds of discrete and interacting ice floes. A simple vessel is modeled as it navigates through the domain. Each ship-ice collision is modeled, as is every ice-ice contact. Each ship-ice collision event is logged, along with all relevant ice and ship data. Thousands of collisions are logged as the vessel transits many tens of kilometers of ice pack. The GEM methodology allows the simulations to be performed much faster than real time. The resulting impact load statistics are qualitatively evaluated and compared to published field data. The analysis provides insight into the nature of loads in pack ice. The work is part of a large research project at Memorial University called STePS2 (Sustainable Technology for Polar Ships and Structures).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOTC Arctic Technology ConferenceSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207